Leaderboard

Yes.

Can I get an "Amen"!!!???

Why are you asking if they have been diagnosed? Our forms says (and I'm paraphrasing here): A "qualified individual" is defined as: 1) diagnose, spouse dependent; 2) suffered an adverse financial consequence as a result of ...." and then the verification: "I certify that I meet one or more of the criteria to be considered a "qualified individual" as described above." Get their signature, a date and move on. I don't *want* to know why they qualify, and the Act allows reliance on the self certification. Period.

Even if the CEO has no ownership and is legitimately an independent contractor, assuming this role is his principal business, wouldn't this be a management services ASG? As Larry said, maybe he's a CEO for hire with other clients, so this is not his principal gig, but it bears investigation.

See page 2 of the Form 8915-B instructions for an analogous situation: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i8915b.pdf Any repayments after the first year will reduce the amount of ratable income included in the year of repayment. Any repayment in excess of that year's ratable taxable amount can be carried back (by amending prior year's return) or forward.

Ask the participant

No

A should also decide who is in the plan; "keep the plan" might mean "keep it to cover subsidiary B" or it might mean something else. In addition, if the coverage is expanded, A should consider how to define eligibility service and vesting service.

If it is not addressed in the loan policy then I'd say you are free to do what seems reasonable. I think it is reasonable to allow the payoff. I can't imagine any consequences as long as it is not in direct contradiction to plan terms/loan policy.

100%. With that said, this is a disaster waiting to happen. Why wait for the IRS to come in and say the election itself is flawed? It should include language as to what happens if the election amount exceeds comp.

Can't believe they would be out of luck. And if the current interpretation is that they would be, then the IRS will "clarify" things at some point to confirm the current interpretation is wrong. Betcha.

I've heard that concern before with respect to normal borrowing. Never seen the IRS or DOL assert a PT in the real world. Whatever probability you assign to the construct being a PT in the absence of CVD's, it is an order of magnitude less in this environment.

Dear Kac1214, I share Bird’s conclusions. Individuals who make after-tax contributions to plans have basis in employer-benefit plan benefits. Such basis would continue after rollover of by the individual of a benefit distribution to eligible retirement plan, including an IRA. Most recipient plans make no attempt to keep track of such basis, although they often segregate benefits associated with a participant’s rollover. Thus, the presence of basis does not usually affect the decision of a plan to accept a rollover. Individuals are responsible for keeping track of the basis of such rollovers. One could raise the same issue about creating basis with any eligible rollover distribution (as defined in section IRC Section 402(c)(4)) if the individual included some of the distribution in taxable income of the year of the receipt. That inclusion would not be consistent with the exclusion of income rules of IRC Section 402(c)(1) and thus would not be permitted. Similarly, I would conclude an individual who wishes pursuant to the CARES Section 2202(3) to recontribute a coronavirus-related distribution from an eligible retirement plan (including an individual retirement arrangement) within three years to an eligible retirement plan would be compelled to amend any returns to the extent the individual included any portion of such distribution in the individual's gross income. Best wishes,

The idea would be that you could amend your returns and get the tax money back. I don't believe the intent is to be creating after-tax basis and have no idea how a plan would know that someone essentially didn't claim it as a rollover; I assume they would have to confirm that it is (just like they do with a regular rollover). Forget about the CARES Act for a sec and imagine if someone rolled money over, confirmed it was a rollover, but paid the tax on it...not the plan's problem.

I was in a webinar yesterday with Derrin Watson and Stephen Forbes - during the Q&A this came up. It was recommended to use a Code "1" if the taxpayer is under 59 1/2 and then the taxpayer would address this when the individual's taxes are filed. I believe there was a form mentioned that allows the taxpayer, when filing, r to advise the IRS that there was an exception. That being said, I agree that when the time arrives next January, there will be a "special" code that will be used however in this case Susan was needing a code right away. My two cents...

It's really pretty simple: there are NO RMDs in 2020. Any distribution is something else. It's not optional. If the employer wants to provide for the now allowable distribution, they can, but it's not an RMD in any case.

Yes. I see nothing in the legislation (or reason) it wouldn't be.

I needed to decide today because I am paying everyone out today. If I say no partial term today and they don't get rehired, then I have to go back and repay everyone which is a total disaster. That nd it was 50% of the workforce and the client is thinking that they will not be back by year-end. I might have held back if there was a chance. But this is a seasonal business and their season is from now until June. So the ship sailed for this year unfortunately.

That was my thought as well. The language covers someone "laid off" and also explicitly applies to IRAs. So it can't be just a new distributable event, as both "those laid off" and "those with IRAs" already have permissible distributable events, but rather a wholly separate type of distribution for anyone with a plan balance.

As I expected, I have no doubt that the hours you count ("every hour for which you are paid OR ENTITLED TO PAYMENT...") means that the hours worked during the year (even if some of the pay for the last period is in the next year) COUNTS for that first plan year. I assume the computation period is also plan year, so the same would hold for vesting. So in your example, the hours worked in 2019 will count for 2019; W-2 might not include some of the hours from that year but probably will include payment for some of the hours form 2018 if the same situation applied for that year.

In fact, the THIRD way was added because of my pointing out at the "rollout" meeting that their rules were unrealistic in many ways and that there was nothing to prevent me from getting the credentials for each client and actually filing their returns. They were clearly NOT happy with me and my pointing out the holes in their carefully designed system. They actually believed that requiring unique web addresses to get the credentials would prevent people like us getting the credentials. It took all of about 3 seconds to explain that, since I have my own domain name, I have an unlimited number of email addresses, all of which coud be aliased back to just the one person who handles our process of getting the credentials and storing them in our database. When they later checked with me via Craig Hoffman (before announcing the "third way") to see if that would satisfy me, I explained that I appreciated their efforts and that probably a lot of folks might adopt that and it was a definite improvement, but I would NOT adopt it because it requires attaching an actual signed copy of the 55500, and as a public document, I had no desire making my client's legal signature available to anyone who wanted to copy it for any nefarious purposes. So we still do it the "Larry Starr" way, and so do a whole lot of other people. FWIW.

You got it! It is a discretionary employer contribution and the plan document has not direct connection via written provisions to the external reason (student loan payment) for the employer contribution.

Not sure this is exactly what you mean, but I'll relate a story. Back when eFast first came out, the 5500 provider we used wanted the process to be: 1. TPA prepares 5500 2. TPA uploads the file to TPA website provided by 5500 software company 3. Client signs on to TPA website and signs 5500 with DOL credentials 4. TPA processes 5500 and sends to DOL We decided not to do that because it would require many clients to obtain DOL credentials AND get logins to the TPA website that they hadn't had to do before. So, instead we did this: 1. TPA prepares 5500 and exports file. 2. TPA uploads the file to DOL eFast site 3. Client signs on to DOL eFast website and signs 5500 with DOL credentials 4. Done Worked like a charm and when lots of the 5500 providers were struggling with the web integration, we had 0 issues. I think it's been quite awhile and i haven't seen the providers have those issues recently, so I'm not sure it's worth doing differently. But it can work. Maybe that helps some?

Employee entered the plan and was eligible to defer beginning on their date of re-hire, 8/1/2019.

No. See #3 under "Examples of impermissible mid-year changes" here: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/mid-year-changes-to-safe-harbor-401k-plans-and-notices

A plan’s administrator should ask its lawyer’s advice. If the plan has provisions that follow (or are construed or interpreted to follow) ERISA § 205, it is not enough that the spouse’s act be genuine; rather, the spouse's consent must “acknowledge” the effect of the participant’s election, and must be “witnessed by a plan representative or a notary public[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1746 might in some circumstances treat a declaration under penalty of perjury as a substitute for an affidavit. But that is not the same as an acknowledgment. And it is not witnessed. Beyond whether a declaration is sufficient for a spouse’s consent, a plan’s administrator might want its lawyer’s advice about whether the administrator’s conduct would meet its ERISA § 404(a) fiduciary responsibility, and would under ERISA § 205(c)(6) protect the administrator from liability for an incorrect payment (or for denying a benefit). And if a plan’s administrator denies a participant’s claim for a distribution other than a qualified joint and survivor annuity, the administrator might be punctilious in following its ERISA § 503 claims procedure, affording opportunities for a participant to perfect his claim or argue against the administrator’s interpretation of the plan.

Being told by whom? Make a note of their name and then make sure you never give credence to anything they ever say again! It requires specific plan language, and the plan can be amended to add that provision (every one of our plans allows for distributions at NRA even if still employed).

Rollover. Prior to that year, only SIMPLE IRA money could be rolled into a SIMPLE IRA account. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rollover_chart.pdf

The only unwritten rule in retirement plan administration is that those who follow unwritten rules in administering plans end up in trouble with the IRS and/or DOL.

It supposed to be written. In the plan document, that is. Amend?

Plans should NEVER allow for in-kind distributions if there are employees other than the owner in the plan. But ok, you are stuck with what you have. And yes, payee is entitled to in-kind if the plan so provides. Amend plan to eliminate in-kind: § 1.411(d)-4 Section 411(d)(6) protected benefits. See Q2 (b)(2)(iii)(A): (iii) In-kind distributions - (A) In-kind distributions payable under defined contribution plans in the form of marketable securities other than employer securities. If a defined contribution plan includes an optional form of benefit under which benefits are distributed in the form of marketable securities, other than securities of the employer, that optional form of benefit may be modified by a plan amendment that substitutes cash for the marketable securities as the medium of distribution. For purposes of this paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(A) and paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(B) of this Q&A-2, the term marketable securities means marketable securities as defined in section 731(c)(2), and the term securities of the employer means securities of the employer as defined in section 402(e)(4)(E)(ii).